Southport attacker pleads guilty to murdering three girls | Sentenced to 52 years in prison

Jimmieblue said:
Nobody seems interested in why he targeted little girls at a Taylor Swift event. Another fact brushed aside.
Click to expand...
What fact is that? Regarding that, the fact is that they've not been able to establish a motive so it's not that people aren't interested. We literally just don't know why he did it and why he targeted those little girls. It could be that more comes out at sentencing tomorrow. What we do know is that he's a very violent and disturbed individual. It could be - and this is horrific by the way - that he wanted to go on a killing spree and he saw them as an easier target than, say, a group of adults at a shopping centre.
 
meltonblue said:
It is depressing nowadays how long is spent debating things that previously was just taken as a given. Even more worryingly than within the public, increasingly so by disingenuous politicians that know better.
Click to expand...

Yes, and it's also deeply ironic that this guy was clearly influenced by online disinformation/violent content, and likewise the same people most up in arms about him on here are also parroting online disinformation.
 
M18CTID said:
What fact is that? Regarding that, the fact is that they've not been able to establish a motive so it's not that people aren't interested. We literally just don't know why he did it and why he targeted those little girls. It could be that more comes out at sentencing tomorrow. What we do know is that he's a very violent and disturbed individual. It could be - and this is horrific by the way - that he wanted to go on a killing spree and he saw them as an easier target than, say, a group of adults at a shopping centre.
Click to expand...
He wanted to do a school 'shooting', had attempted to do one a few weeks previously, and then the schools closed for the summer holidays. This was presumably the closest thing he could find to a school.
 
M18CTID said:
What fact is that? Regarding that, the fact is that they've not been able to establish a motive so it's not that people aren't interested. We literally just don't know why he did it and why he targeted those little girls. It could be that more comes out at sentencing tomorrow. What we do know is that he's a very violent and disturbed individual. It could be - and this is horrific by the way - that he wanted to go on a killing spree and he saw them as an easier target than, say, a group of adults at a shopping centre.
Click to expand...
I do hope more comes out, he seems to have had an objection to little girls dressing up like Taylor Swift, or is that just my simplistic way of looking at it. He must have found out somehow that this event was taking place, I for one don’t think it was a random attack.
 
bert38 said:
But that isn't what the law says-no matter how much you want it to be.

Starmer correctly raised the issue of whether the law needs to be amended-to cater for lone wolf, online radicalised people intent on violence irrespective of their ideology..

Under your definition any murder would pretty much be classed as terroism, as would buglaries where the occupant was present or most robberies where weapons were used or violence-
Click to expand...

Burglaries and many murders are done for gain. What this scrote did was to terrorise. He's a terrorist.
 
halfmist said:
Erm because he has admitted to terrorism offences.
Click to expand...
Open to correction, but he was charged under the Terrorism Act with an action that might help a terrorist, not with being a terrorist.

It's a fine distinction, but one that has to be made when people are making accusations about a "cover up" pre-trial.
 
Some think he should be classed as a terrorist
Others just a nut job
Some may think he's a bit of both

I'm pretty sure everyone has stated their reasoning by now some several times over. Its getting a tad repetitive.

Anyhow I hope the inquiry actually achieves something and is carried out in good faith.
 
Perhaps people should revisit "Bowling for Columbine" before coming to any conclusions about motive or cause.
 
roubaixtuesday said:
"Fits the description of a terrorist" is fine for you to call him a terrorist. Nobody objects. Describe away.

However, the murders he committed do not fit the legal definition of a terrorist offence. So they are not terrorist offences in law.

This was simple on page one of the thread, and it's still simple on page 25. It will remain simple for as long as you choose to ramble on. Your opinion is completely irrelevant in law.
Click to expand...
I must confess when the news first broke on the fact that he had been investigated 3 times and no action had been taken I thought to myself how could this have happened. Having seen your posts it helps explain why. Nothing to see here, case closed, we cannot be accused of calling him a terrorist otherwise people will assume Muslim and we pick up a racist label. Little wonder it keeps happening time and time again
 
roubaixtuesday said:
No idea why you would think that - where was that reported?
Click to expand...
Not seen that reported, but I’m curious as to why he went all the way to an event where small children, mainly girls, were dressing up like Taylor Swift. That’s my whole point, why has it not been reported. He had a motive, that seems obvious to me, I don’t always go off what I read in the MSM.
 
bert38 said:
indeed-he also said 'from the evidence I have heard'.

Now, in case I've missed it-what evidence is available to the public? v little.

Do we know what he said in police interview? He may have gone 'no comment'-which would then suppose without witness evidence or any other evidence that its v hard to identify his motives.

Didn't the Jo Cox killer shout 'Britain first' before shooting her?
Click to expand...
No he didn’t say that did he …get away. !? I am having my doubts as to how much you know about the case and how our system works. Here goes, the defendant actually uttered the word guilty as each charge was read. I heard that on the news. Had he not pleaded guilty and remained silent, the Court would have entered a not guilty plea on his behalf. There would then have been a trial for the offences that he pleaded not guilty to. You see the good old British system plays to the Queensbury Rules
 
What the judge says will of course be an end to most arguments.

However - not talking about this particular case - it's an error to think people always have a rational motive for doing heinous things. Sometimes, as it were, they just do it for the crack. Because they can. Because it gives them some sort of buzz. We are talking about sick puppies. Not necessarily people with a particular cause they are trying to promote.

Let's see what the judge says. I'm pretty sure it will answer many points. Then the inquiry will, eventually, highlight the flaws in the 'system'. Though I'm not convinced you can ever halt all random attacks. I have a kitchen full of lethal knives. If I decided to go out and murder someone tomorrow, what conceivable system of prevention could stop me?
 
Brightwell Bros. said:
I don't know who you are arguing with here, you're certainly not engaging anyone on this thread in good faith.

All of us accept that Islamic terrorism is a thing, and has been an underlying ideology in a number prominent brutal murders and attacks in the UK and the world. I'm (we're) happy to attribute that when it's the cause, and helps us understand why and how something happened.

What we are saying is from the information we have available in the public domain in this particular case he wasn't a Muslim, wasn't engaged with Islamism, didn't have any sympathies with Islamic beliefs or values, and didn't commit these crimes to further Islamic causes. (Nor, for what it's worth, far right or left beliefs, Irish independence, anarchism, animal rights etc etc etc). He's not left a manifesto, not been in contact with associated terrorist groups, not made any political or religious statements before, during or after. He apparently has one document that could be linked with Isis, but that document was one of many that spanned a whole cache of engagement with violent and extreme materials.

Surely you can understand that point?
Click to expand...
Who on here has said he was Muslim and an Islamic Terrorist. I cannot recall anyone saying that. The gist of the “debate” is the description of the offences
 
halfmist said:
No he didn’t say that did he …get away. !? I am having my doubts as to how much you know about the case and how our system works. Here goes, the defendant actually uttered the word guilty as each charge was read. I heard that on the news. Had he not pleaded guilty and remained silent, the Court would have entered a not guilty plea on his behalf. There would then have been a trial for the offences that he pleaded not guilty to. You see the good old British system plays to the Queensbury Rules
Click to expand...
Perhaps i struggle to grasp your ramblings?

The silence I proposed is regarding his police interview under caution-I am suggesting he may have said nothing-in which case without other direct evidence it would be hard to determine his motives for the murders.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top